Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About janineanne

  • Rank
    Starting Member

Personal Information

  • Location
  • Occupation
  1. Probably because ours has settled, so they have extra capacity. Although it might not be the same one - ours was handled by Ball Janik.
  2. That's exactly the plan. Except we want to fix it ourselves, if possible - just not sure how to do it. That's why I showed up here.
  3. So, did everyone who wanted one get a copy of that report from Forensic, and does anyone have any thoughts on it? Thanks in advance for your time if you read it!
  4. John, I'm pretty sure it wasn't Forensic's fault - I was there when they did their inspection and I didn't see them doing anything in that area. Besides, the inspection was done almost 3 years ago so it's probably too late to prove that it was them anyway. Jim has described the scenario pretty much perfectly, except that there wasn't any fixed buy-in amount. Each homeowner who joined the lawsuit was to be responsible for an equal share of the law firm's expenses and there was no information provided at all for how much that might be. So we would have been signing up to be responsible for s
  5. Sent. Let me know if anyone else wants a copy. Just keep your large grain of salt handy since this was prepared at the behest of the lawyers who were preparing to sue Arbor.
  6. There is a barrier, but it wasn't installed properly. That was part of the basis of the lawsuit. However, we're not prepared to replace all the siding to fix it - not having damage under our siding gives me some confidence that they didn't do too crappy a job on our particular house.
  7. Not on our house, no. There was a small amount of rot behind the bottom edge of the window over the garage; they replaced the affected piece of wood trim. A number of houses in the neighborhood had major damage under the siding and had to be completely redone, but I'm not aware of any of the larger houses like ours being that affected. Ours was one of the least affected they looked at, which was a big reason why we did not join the lawsuit. Actually, I should clarify slightly - if you read their report you would think that we did have water damage. I'm going from what they told me and
  8. I'm not sure how much these are going to help - I may have to get ahold of a real camera instead of using my phone. But here's what I have for now. The first picture, with the window far away, is what it looks like from the corner of the house (which is just outside frame to the left). The next picture, closer to the window, is the next part of that side of the house. You can see (I hope) where the slipping boards stop. The last picture is a bit more context for the worst one, the one with the visible nail hole. The caulk marks around the window were made by Forensic; they opened up the ho
  9. The siding is actually holding on to the paint just fine. It's only the white trim (real wood underneath) and the wood shingles on the front that look really bad. But the paint Arbor uses is the thinnest, cheapest stuff you can get so the color is pretty faded. That means that in order to repair the spots where Forensic pulled off siding and replaced it with fresh pieces, we have to paint the whole thing or the new paint will be very noticeable. So basically we are being "rewarded" for having played along with the lawsuit even to the extent that we did.
  10. I have used a hammer before - I'm not *that* green! I'll get some pictures as soon as I can. Probably tonight if it's not raining.
  11. Believe me, Mark, I know. But house painting is not a little money - it's at least $3500 to have this house painted. We were hoping to put it off until we could better afford it, and so it would be fresh when we sold the house, but it was not to be. Our HOA is as terrible as the builder; they look the other way when people do unapproved changes to their houses, often approving after the fact things that they would not have approved if the people had asked first. But they are ruthless about the things that they can press without worrying about getting sued. I used to be on the board so I have f
  12. I'm going to reply to everyone all at once, and somewhat quickly as I'm supposed to be working: Jim, I'm not so much griping about having to do maintenance as I'm griping about having to do it on the HOA's schedule. We plan to move in a couple of years and had hoped to put off painting until then. I didn't even realize we had an issue with disappearing caulk and slipping siding until I looked more closely. I will take your word for it that Arbor is no worse. All I can say is that it's pretty bad. We've had some neighbors have floods because their upstairs plumbing has given way, lovely
  13. I had a feeling my question would bring out a range of responses, based on what I had already read in this thread. Mark, if I had it to do over again I might think twice about buying a house with Hardiplank, or would at least have taken a closer look at the installation. In fact, if I had it to do over again I would not buy an Arbor house at all. But under the circumstances, I'll settle for making it reasonably right. Completely right is probably not going to happen, as it sounds like a great deal of work and expense. I guess it could be worse - we have none of those golf ball dimples
  14. Hi all, I know this is a somewhat old topic but this looked like a good place to post my question as there are knowledgeable people in this thread. I own a 10 year old home near Portland, Oregon. For those who are local, it was built by Arbor; for those who aren't, think sleazy mass market builder who gets sued a lot. We are going to be painting the house ourselves this summer, and as such I've been taking a closer look at it than I usually do. We have Hardiplank and overall it's in pretty good condition, except for the large gaps where the caulk disappeared a long time ago. We had
  • Create New...